Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

[Shawnee123]

Except there will no longer be tax cuts for companies that send jobs overseas.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Except there will no longer be tax cuts for companies that send jobs overseas.

Says who? You?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking. The election has not happened yet. And any promise that he makes you is total and utter bull shit. Nothing can be done without Congress. Obama can't do shit without the approval of Congress. Do you think Congress is going to role with that? All those guys have been getting elected by those big corps for years. Give me a break.

Nothing any of those fools promise you can be done without Congress.

[Shawnee123]

Still, it's happened. Explain to me, o wise and wondrous man of knowledge, where did those breaks come from originally? I really don't know, and would like to.

Big corps and demos? Seriously, on which planet do you live?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Says who? You?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking. Nothing can be done without Congress. All those guys have been getting elected by those big corps for years.
Nothing any of those fools promise you can be done without Congress.

The D's will have control in all three. There will be no checks nor balances. The R's will be steamrolled repeatedly. Virtually anything the D's want, they will be able to get/pass/enact.
I just hope they make the right decisions.

As far as the taxing big corps... Some is better than none. There must be a balance. We cannot hammer them with huge tax increases. They will move overseas, then paying ZERO taxes, reducing the revenue stream that the tax was intended to increase.
That will also close facilities, creating an increase in unemployment, further reducing the tax revenue stream.... Same thing goes with taxing the "rich". If you are at the lower end of the tax scale, it sounds great, but the money has to come from somewhere and if you drive off those paying...Who is gonna pay the bills? This snowball theory is what I'm concerned about.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

The D's will have control in all three. There will be no checks nor balances.

Well, there's still the filibuster, which is a brake. But I agree that one party rule is bad.

People complain when power is shared between the parties, because it results in gridlock. The alternative is a monopoly on power, hubris, bad government, and voting the bums out. Rinse repeat.

Personally, as a Dem., my ideal would be for a Dem Pres, a Dem majority in the House, and a Repub. majority in the senate. With a Supreme Court full of libertarian leaning moderates who routinely cross back and forth over traditional party lines as they rule.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Well, there's still the filibuster, which is a brake. But I agree that one party rule is bad.

The D's are VERY close to gaining the 60 necessary to overcome a filibuster.

[classicman]

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video

John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."

The original article said that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans in Chicago and his presence at Palestinian community events had led some to think he was sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint on Middle East politics. Obama publicly expresses a pro-Israel viewpoint that pleases many Jewish leaders.

In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.

It said that Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York.

[Happy Monkey]

Uh, oh! The evil Khalidi! What will we do?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Explain to me, o wise and wondrous man of knowledge, where did those breaks come from originally? I really don't know, and would like to.

Out of respect I will ignore your totally patronizing comment, but yea the breaks came from the same fucking Congress that sucked up to the corps to get elected. The businesses may change, but don't think for one fucking minute that the rules have changed, they have not. Please tell me who has had the majority for the last two years and have had consistantly LOWER FUCKING APPROVAL Ratings than BUSH? Who? They are in charge, they get the blame for failure to negotiate and do what is right for the country. Wise one...

[lookout123]

I'll drop this here since it is somewhat related.

When is someone in the media going to seriously going to explore Obama's middle class tax cut claims? I keep hearing we need to raise taxes on the rich because the poor are paying too much but I don't see any support for the claim.

The reason I ask today is I spent the day working with a couple of accountants on a project and we landed on the subject. We were looking at actual tax returns and here is what I found.

Family of four with $50,000 Net of deductions paid <$500 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.

No one wants to pay any taxes and I understand that, but even at the $100,000 the tax payer is paying less than 10% of their income. They're middle class - should they pay less? $50,000 is certainly middle class - how could they pay any less?

I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?

[DanaC]

Well, given he has set the limits at $250k per year (no tax rise) and $200k per year (tax cut) I am guessing he's talking about the people whose incomes sit between $50k - $200k per year.

[Shawnee123]

They broke the two tax plans down on the world news last night. At some incomes, there is virtually no difference in tax liability, compared to what we have now.

Yes, when you get above 250,000 you pay more under Obama's plan. Approximately 600 bucks more, on a tax bill that's already about 40 grand.

I argued with my friend who is a grand regurgitator, and she said "what about the children? 600 bucks could mean the difference between getting the children health care."

My reply was that if you can't take care of your children on 250 grand a year, ur doin' it wrong. Sell the RV or the motorboat.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'll drop this here since it is somewhat related.

When is someone in the media going to seriously going to explore Obama's middle class tax cut claims? I keep hearing we need to raise taxes on the rich because the poor are paying too much but I don't see any support for the claim.

The reason I ask today is I spent the day working with a couple of accountants on a project and we landed on the subject. We were looking at actual tax returns and here is what I found.

Family of four with $50,000 Net of deductions paid <$500 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.

No one wants to pay any taxes and I understand that, but even at the $100,000 the tax payer is paying less than 10% of their income. They're middle class - should they pay less? $50,000 is certainly middle class - how could they pay any less?

I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?

I think, that as most politicians assume, the average voter is not smart enough to figure that out. It is all pandering. Smoke and Mirrors. I stand by the statement, Be careful what you wish for. It will not come without cost.

[TheMercenary]

This is too rich.

PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.

MORE

Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.

After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.

Developing...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.

Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.

If I make an additional $20,000 then my taxes increase by $5000??

Originally Posted by lookout123

I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?

Good question - One no one seems to be asking, I wonder why?